tv New York 19th Congressional District Debate CSPAN November 1, 2014 2:00pm-3:01pm EDT
>> i'm michelle nunn and i approve this message. david purdue is defending his career amid an outsourcing report. >> david purdue acknowledged he spent most of his career moving u.s. jobs overseas. >> the attorney asked -- can you describe your experience with outsourcing? purdue responds, "yeah, i spent most of my career doing that." defendsasked how he outsourcing, he doubled down. >> michelle nunn admits she's too liberal and her foundation gave money to organizations linked to terrorists, so she needed to fool georgians to win. she at 10 david purdue -- he attacked david purdue in in -- in ads that independent fact checkers called mostly false and a stretch. purdue would grow this economy and bring common sense to washington. >> i'm david purdue, and i approve this message. >> watch the georgia senate debate between democrat michelle
nunn and republican david purdue live tomorrow at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. now to the race in new york's 19th congressional district where two-term republican incumbent chris gibson is running against democrat sean eldridge. theirntly competed in final debate courtesy of time warner cable news. this is an hour. ♪ >> hello and welcome to our time warner cable news debate tween the candidates or the 19th congressional district. participating in tonight's debate or congressman chris gibson, who has been in office for two terms -- he's a republican -- and his democratic
challenger sean eldridge. these two have gone head to head several times, and will be continuing that conversation this evening. here are the rules the candidates have agreed to -- moderators will ask as many questions as we are able to get to. responses initially will be limited to one minute with rebuttals allowed at the discretion of the panelists. about halfway through, panelists will have the opportunity to ask .uestions the order was selected yesterday. up first is congressman gibson. congressman. >> thank you, and good evening, everyone. thanks for joining us. you'll go away in this debate with two points. and a challenging time, i have a proven record of getting things done for us, like the farm bill. helping family farms, advancing liberal economy and creating jobs. the funding for infrastructure, broadband, tourism, and i helped lower energy cost and enact a sweeping reform of the v.a. to help veterans. we passed on the house with a
first time ever a bill that deals with chronic line disease. the second thing you will take away from this debate -- my millions ofring dollars from his family fortune into this race to mislead you about me. you have seen those negative ahlstrom or is and mailers. my opponent offers no plan, no inspiration and help. i grew up here in a working-class family. i thought for you. i am still fighting for you and delivering results, and tonight, i ask for your vote. >> thank you to time warner cable for having us. when i was growing up in a small town in ohio, my dad was a republican, and my mom was a ofocrat, and they had a lot spirited conversations about politics on our dinner table, and they did not agree about every issue, but they taught me from a young age the importance of being involved in your community, speaking out and speaking -- speaking up and speaking out and giving a voice to those who may not have a voice on the run. the voices of families in our region are not being heard in washington. they are being drowned out by
corporate money, special-interest money in our campaigns and in the halls of congress. i'm running because i want to help fix that. i want to bring new leadership, new blood, new ideas that i think are badly needed white now -- right now in washington. i'm asking for your vote and your help moving our country forward on so many very important issues. i cue. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. this question is going to go to congressman gibson, and it's on the topic of ebola. the centers for disease control announced today it will begin today people arriving from ebola-infected countries in west africa for 21 days. is that announcement coupled with yesterday's announcement that all travelers from west africa will have to go through one of those five air sports doing extra screening enough, or do you think there should be a complete travel ban? >> am encouraged by the news of the last 72 hours, not only these development, but also some
of those that are sick of here to begetting better. i think this is a matter of leadership. we not only did to keep our people safe, but we also need to inspire their confidence -- we not only need to keep our people safe. we need to have a temporary travel ban long enough that we can have a comprehensive screening process forward in west africa. this is similar to what i went through and my parents went through when we came back from a combat tour in iraq. before we came back, we had a medical screening and a customs layout. before we were allowed to get on an aircraft. we have the ability with the visa process to check to make sure that we are having folks come here who are safe. in addition to that, my opponent said that we have not provided enough funding. that's not what the president said, and the washington post gave that for pinocchio -- 4 pinocchios. we need to solve the problem and inspire the confidence of the american people. >> you support a temporary
travel ban. >> it would not have to be in effect that long, but long enough to get an efficacious, forward screening process that we could tied to the visa granting process so that we would have confidence in terms of anyone that is coming to our country. >> your response -- do you think the steps that the obama administration has put in place over the last couple of days are enough, or do you support a temporary travel ban? >> i think we have to take the spread of ebola seriously, and the fact that the cdc is allowing folks and have been exposed to get on a plane, to get on a cruise ship -- that was completely unacceptable. we have to stop it now. i want to make sure the cdc and nih have the funding that they need. head of the nih said that we should likely have a vaccine for ebola to repair the fact that we have seen budget cuts have certainly brought about the lack of funding. i do not support a travel ban right now. i was with senator schumer earlier this week, and i thought
he made an important point, which is that if we had a travel ban, people might be trying to sneak in. i would rather know who is in our country, take their temperature, screen them as they are coming in, so we got to make sure we have aggressive screening at our airports, our ports, our borders. we have to take this seriously. >> you mentioned the cdc allowing people to travel. do you think the obama administration prior to this week, prior to last week, was someone asleep at the switch? >> folks who have been exposed to the disease should not have been a lead to travel. we need to make sure the cdc is held accountable. the idea of having one point person in the white house to deal with this is a good idea. hopefully that will help, but we've got to make sure we are monitoring those and stop this spread. i was disappointed with the first couple of weeks on this, and i know i'm not alone. viewers had the same reaction. they called our office, and i pledged to do everything i can to keep our people safe and,
really, to inspire confidence. , andi said, i'm encouraged i truly hope that going forward, we are able to get our arms completely around the issue and make sure that we stop the spread. >> thank you very much. this question is for you, mr. eldridge, regarding isis. you have indicated you would have vote against giving the obama administration the power to arm and train syrian rebels, yes, correct? >> correct. >> you also said you agree with the congressman that with the u.s. needs is a political solution. if you could expand on that and onl us when if ever a boots the ground solution is appropriate. >> we have to take the spread of isis seriously. they are obviously an aggressive and violent organization that has killed a lot of people in done a lot of harm. we have to take that seriously. we have to work with our allies in iraq, the middle east, and an international communities to address this. we've been involved militarily in iraq or a long time, and that alone has not worked.
when i talk to families throughout the region, they do not want another open-ended never-ending conflict weary we have to continue to bolster our allies. where we are today, i do not want boots on the ground. i do not want another never-ending conflict. when i talk to folks in our district, they do not want that, either. they want to do nationbuilding at home and make sure we are investing here as well. i do think we can work with our -- without not having boots on the ground. >> is there ever a scenario the you could foresee -- for example, if, in fact, the u.s. was attacked again on our own soil, that boots on the ground would be appropriate? >> absolutely. i think military force should be reserved for a moment when our national security is at risk and with diplomacy has failed. we have to do everything we can to secure our borders. we got to do a better job of securing our borders given the threat of crisis. i hope we will have an opportunity to talk about the immigration reform bill that did
not pass in the senate that would have provided aliens for border security. togressman gibson continues oppose that bipartisan, or my's. let's not continue to delay on that front. >> congressman, you've spoken about the need to strengthen security at home because you believe isis has and many people attack rightire to here. >> you've got it right. i want to say first and foremost that my role on the house armed services committee i take very seriously. we are going to keep our people safe. on the border, we voted for a bill that would secure our border on the first week of august of this year. unfortunately, the senate did not move it. the senate should pass it, and a president should sign it, not only because it will keep us safer -- i'm not just talking about the southern portion, talking about the northern border and the ports. set the conditions, i think -- and by the way, my party is on record voting for that, and i think that is important.
being on record voting for that means that we should have now set the conditions for comprehensive immigration reform . providing that we use our bill that we used in august. let me say on islam it state that this is a threat that i know personally. themselves,branded but before they were the islamic state, they were al qaeda in iraq. this is the enemy that my paratroopers, that we thought, and it is an evil enemy. there's no question. they did unspeakable things. we have to confront this. we will not be able to deter them. they have to be defeated. the question is -- how? i disagree with the escalation in syria. ishink what we need to do three things, and we covered the third, and that is the border. the first two things is we have to help the iraqi armed forces and the kurds defeat the islamic state in iraq. that will not only neutralize the military people in iraq, but it also disrupts their ability.
and then you are asking about what to do about syria. what we need to do is working with our friends and allies, not only in the region but across the world, to put pressure on the assad regime -- >> congress meant, forgive me, i hate to cut you off. were going to run out of time, but we are also going to get back to the immigration question, which we sort of deviated to just to be clear, because i did ask mr. aldrich -- boots on the ground ever appropriate at some point in your mind? >> the number one priority our people. if we end up discerning, learning about a threat in the process of attacking our country, we will take any means necessary to protect our people, including using ground troops if necessary. >> thank you very much. >> from waterways to roads and structures in this district, across the country, getting older. local officials say the money just is not therefore replacing all the bridges and sewers that need replacing. the risks of making these beenvements and time have
shown. what can the federal government do to help? couple of things -- we support -- we are partners in this. contributioneral that is made. a state contribution is made, and is often a local contribution that goes in as well. the federal contribution comes and tina printable bills, although some smaller grants come in some of the others as well. the infrastructure bill and then there's the farm bill. the infrastructure bill, the surface transportation bill provides money for us. in our district, we have a bridge being built in part because of federal funding that i helped get for our area. i am proud of our workers. i am proud of our companies and workers working now on the bridge. going forward, we will have challenges as far as how to fund it. i've come forward with new thinking that will not climb up on the back of middle-class families here because there is talk about trying to raise the gas tax. there is a smarter way we can pay for this infrastructure, and we can do that by expanding
exploration off the coast and taking new royalties and putting it into the highway trust fund, and we can also do this by bringing money back to the united states. overseas, byllion bringing it back, we can pay for that. and the farm bill -- >> we are going to get to the farm bill actually next. for want to get to sean your response. the federal government recently rejected the broad majority of a loan from the state to help pay for the bridge. do you think the federal government was right in that instance? >> we need to make sure the funds are used appropriately. some were meant for water and sewer projects. we have to make sure we are using in a structure where it is meant to be done, but more broadly, the federal government is not going to be everything to everyone, but it has got to invest in things like infrastructure, and we are all in down on the basics right now. six to percent of our roads in new york state need to be rebuilt. many of our bridges. i also think high-speed internet is critical.
10% of our district and not have access to high-speed internet in 2014. i'm worried that means our communities will fall behind, so we need robust investment in infrastructure. i think if we pass a national infrastructure bank to leverage funds, we could get bipartisan support for that. going back to the internet, the federal government has decided historically in rural areas that access to telephones was necessary. electrification needed to be universal. we need that with the internet. right now, this congress is not getting it done. they are kicking the can down the road, and it's the least productive congress in our history. if we keep the same people, we will not invest in infrastructure. we need new leadership. >> do you think the gas tax should be increased in order to pay for some of that infrastructure? >> absolutely not, but i want to close the $4 billion giveaway to big companies, and congressman gibson continues to vote for that. >> that's not true, actually. my record reflects that i would like to move into clean and renewable energy, and i've been
a leader on that. 59 votes to strengthen the energy efficiency and renewable energy account. i am a cosponsor of a democratic hill. mr. delaney from maryland is perfectly suited to bring forward a bill because he used to do this before he can to congress. the 1.5 trillion dollars overseas, getting it back into our economy, and they would come back at a discounted rate. not only roads and bridges, water and sewer, but broadband and the noble energy. i had been have to be a cosponsor of this bill, and i think if you marry that course of action with the exploration, you will be able to pay for infrastructure for a decade. >> the rejection of that loan from the environmental protection agency -- was that the right move? >> we've got to comply. obviously, we had challenges in the way we put that together. the homeland administration will but to go back added again, we got the resources there with the bill. now we need to take it from there.
this infrastructure is also in the farm bill. my opponent -- he says he supports farmers -- >> ok, we are going to get to the farm bill. it's the next question. go ahead, michael. >> let's turn to the farm bill. i'm starting with mr. eldridge on this one. you said you would have voted against the, primarily because of the cuts to food stamps. $8 billion, far less than what republicans had first opposed. it split new york senators on this. what size with those cuts to food dance -- what would they have had to be for you to support that bill? >> well, we should not have been cutting them. i think that we do got to support our farmers. at the company i started, we have worked with a number of agricultural companies. we created something called the co-pay agricultural center, worked with a group to provide long-term leases for farmers, so we have got to make the bill work or family farms, which means access to training, access
to credit, and that is very important, but this is an important difference between us. i don't think he should balance our budgets on the backs of folks in need nutritional programs, kids who go to school hungry in the moat -- in the morning. senator gillibrand sits on the agricultural committee and works every day with our farmers, is a proud supporter of our farmers. she thought these cuts went too far. nutritionalutting programs -- these are literally free lunch programs for kids who go to school hungry -- and i know governor cuomo stopped that from happening in new york. at happened elsewhere in the country, and that's not a risk we should have taken. this is broadly a difference between us. congressman gibson has voted then and again to balance budget on those who need help. i think that is wrong. >> just to follow-up, if you are elected and another farm bill comes along and there's, say, $1 billion in cuts to food stamps, $500 million, you would vote against that bill? >> if i believe that the best we
can get, that's fine. was way tooillion much. i would be fighting for farmers and working families and those who need those free lunch programs. $9 billion in cuts to programs that provide seniors food, the put food on the table for families who need help -- that's wrong, and i'm proud to stand up and say that. congressman gibson can pretend it is about farmers, but it's not. you talk a lot about being from here. you know families are struggling. you know people need help, and that's why i'm going to fight against these cuts. >> your response, and what do you say to the families he is talking about, families that need food steps to survive? >> i grew up in a working-class family, and we actually were on it stamps for a time. i want to be very clear -- there were no cuts to the foods that program in the farm bill. those as president obama. tech, andcretary bill quite frankly, so says senator sanders. this was a fraud, waste, and abuse amendment. it came from an inspector
general report from the 2008 thatbill, and it found out when they put in the farm bill in 2008, they said that if you get heating assistance, that you automatically go to the highest level of food stamps, ok? are defending one dollar checks to families so they could bump them up. the inspector general said you had to at least send them $20, and that was the recommendation of the obama administration. when the president signed it into law, he said no child was going to go hungry. it's about temperament to serve in an era of divided government. my opponent has no ability to compromise. he said he would of voted against this bill, with the needed this for our dairy, our fruits and vegetables. we needed it for conservation and rural development. all these things that help the rural economy grow, we would have lost out because of mr. eldridge's and ability to compromise. you got to be able to work together in the signs. there were two points on food stamps. it had to do with this fraud, waste, and abuse them and men,
and the second one that made up the difference was that if you win the lottery, now you have to count those assets. we had someone win the lottery in the midwest, and they went to collect their food stamps and found out they were still eligible. mentioned states .t stepped up was that politics, or would people be at risk of going hungry? >> we had a federalism concept. here's the thing to note -- when it was initially written in the bill, it said if you are getting some kind of assistance like heating assistance, then you automatically qualify, but when states started sending one dollar checks, that was not really the intention of congress . that was an abusive action on the part of the state. they recommended that we move that threshold to $20, so states wanted to send $20, then folks could get automatic high
settles. if a family was actually entitled to the highest level of food stamps, they had no cuts at all. this only automatically move them from the basic level to the highest level. >> i can briefly say it was a $9 billion cut, and the previous version that got out of the house was a $20 billion cut, which i believe you also voted for. having the state step up and pay for it means that is a mandate on the state. that means property taxes are going to go up and it taxes are going to go up to pay for this. federal government has to be a better partner across the road. our states, our counties, our towns cannot afford to pay for everything. they cannot rebuild roads and bridges on their own, and they cannot help working families on their own. this was the federal government putting the burden on the states. that will raise taxes for folks here. i also think that is wrong. >> in real terms -- food steps went from $400 billion to about seven hundred billion dollars. this is no cut. this is based on baseline budgeting and a reduction of savings based on fraud, waste, and abuse amendments.
where i went to school, that is an increase. >> i stand with senator gillibrand on working and fighting for working families. >> ok, let's turn to economic development, shall we? a recent purchase of ibm chip facilities seemingly protects jobs for now, but industry analysts expect us to not remain there in the long term. what role does the federal government play in saving these jobs or at least finding ways to help the industry grow in new york. congress and gibson, this is to you. >> i disagree with the premise. i think we earned this one. by the way, it took 20-plus years to win this. these investments study going in in the 1990's, and a lot of folks try to pile on and take credit. there was a lot of folks in this. frankly, this goes back to the first cuomo administration. the petaca administration supported as well. the investments we made here made it possible for companies
to bring their intellectual and human capital here. administration supported it as well. all of that r&d lead to us being at a competitive advantage when it came to manufacturing. we need to do two aims -- one, we are in the opal -- we are in the open field. we have won these contracts fair and square. we are manufacturing the most state-of-the-art semiconductor in the world. what we should be doing is going forward. education. hudson county community college deserves credit, working with high schools. these are wonderful manufacturing jobs, good jobs. year jobs0 $5,000 a with good benefits and pension, and i'd like to see us take that nanotechnology and turn it into clean and renewable energy. , do you thinke these jobs can stay here long term?
>> am glad it looks like those jobs will stay, but i think the government needs to be careful not just working with large corporations to contact specs and incentives to keep them here. most new jobs in our region come from small businesses that are growing. the vast majority of the shops. those businesses need help as well. that's what i worked on. i started a small business investment company, and i have worked with incredible companies in our region, and there's a few things we can do to support small businesses as well. one is access to capital. the small business administration right now works but he slowly. if you are a startup company, it's hard to get that support when you really needed. we definitely need tax reform. that burden of taxes is falling on small businesses and middle-class families. if we had real tax reform, i think we can lower rates for small businesses and help them grow, and finally, infrastructure, which you hit on, was so critical. >> it was not necessarily a question about tax reform but with the government can do to
stimulate economic development in this field. is this something you believe can be a long-term benefit for regionalon, for these jobs? >> absolutely. we have to build on our strength in the region and create new strengths. it's pretty incredible now we can print in layers of metal and plastic and make objects and half an hour that may have taken weeks before. i created that center to help small businesses and students get trained. the government just came into partner and grow that even further. yes, let's build on our existing strengths, create new strings, train folks for the jobs of the future, and i think the federal government needs to be a better partner in doing that. >> we talked about some of the things that we can do to continue to accelerate this trend. by the way, i'm very optimistic because again, here's the issue -- if someone is trying to compete with us, we already have the intellectual capital here. we have good schools here. we have cost-of-living minus the
energy, which i am working to lower -- we've got so much to offer here. out thentinue to build manufacturing, i believe we are going to continue to win. what we want to do is pull it down the hudson valley, political the mohawk river valley -- notice we are already taking action to do that. we are going to set the stage again to move this up the mohawk river valley. is havingoptimistic global foundries take a sober, i believe there's more ownership and the duchess valley region to see that continue to thrive. >> do you think more tax incentives are necessary for these companies? >> i think tax reform is what we need. i voted to support the small .usiness tax i support lower taxes and lower energy costs. i want to tell you that i am proud to fight for this. kochponent brings up this brothers pledge. if we're going to get these jobs
, we have to have lower energy costs. boehner andp john chris gibson in washington for four more years, we are not going to get tax reform. nothing has passed through the house. christ we are going to get to asking each other questions in a minute. >> i think this is a good opportunity. the point where you have an opportunity to ask your opponent a question. go ahead. you.ank in july 2012 when you got married, you had "the new york times", up. they covered the wedding. wonderful piece, by the way. you were quoted as saying that garrison, which is in putnam county, which is outside of our congressional district -- you are quoted as saying it reminded you of where you grew up in ohio and that you were excited to be
there and that you were going to build your business and build your family there. yet, several months later, you picked up and moved into our district, and within two weeks of buying that home, you filed to be a candidate in congress. i'm curious -- given how emphatic you were in that piece, what changed? >> i appreciate your point out that the hudson valley has been my home for some time now, and a proud of the work i have done and proud that i decided to base my company in kingston. congressman, while you were voting to shut down our government and waste billions of dollars and put our economy at risk, i was supporting small businesses in the hudson valley, so -- creating more jobs than this congress has created. i was on the board of planned parenthood. i was chairing the public policy board to help prepare our town and city for climate change. him very proud of the work i
have done. it's my home. as you said, it's where i got married, and i will continue to fight for those same valleys and same issues. >> it's all very interesting. it's mostly untrue, and you did not answer the question. my company input kingston. really proud of the work we have and am going to keep fighting for those things. >> do you have a question for the congressman? >> i do. we hear about moderate leadership. my question is pretty simple. why did you vote for john boehner for speaker and why not a more moderate option? >> john boehner, i think, you know, stepped forward, and in a very difficult time, i think he provided leadership to make sure that we did not default on our debt, and it's interesting that, you know, sean eldridge criticized me. he said i voted for the sequester. that was not a vote for the sequester. we had 36 hours before we will going to have -- i can hardly even say it -- the first ever default in our country.
my opponent criticized me for voting that way. overy very well developed time into some of the with the right judgment and temperament, but that was not the right position, and john boehner had the right position. we paidake sure that our debt. going forward, is he going to run again? we'll have to wait and see. >> i don't think the right position was to threaten to shut down our government to default on our debt because they did not agree with the president on one issue. i don't think that was the right position. i would never put us in a place where we threatened to not pay our bills, to default on our debt. the republican compromises meant my way or government shutdown. for thet want to say record my vote was the same boat as sean patrick maloney, the same as bill owens, the same as dan laissez, so are they to party -- >> that's not accurate. you voted again and again to shut down our government, and you did shutdown our government.
>> that's not what the record says. >> were going to move on to campaign finance and campaign finance reform which touched on -- which was touched on a little bit tonight. this race has been very expensive and brought up a lot of issues about campaign finance laws. in your opinion, are there appropriate limits on how money should be regulated? should contributions be limited at all, or if it's only a question of disclosure, should all donors be disclosing who they are giving money to and for what? >> first of all, is money a ? oblem as earnest as my opponent is, i cannot think of any other reason other than money why he is the candidate today. he has tremendous potential and may very well over time be in a onlyion, but today, the reason why he is here is money.
i don't think that public financing is the answer. i think we agree on some things that we need to put more money than education in roads and bridges. why should we get taxpayer dollars to negative commercials? i think we need a response. the amount ofg money that can be spent in an election, and them for disclosure and rejecting all outside spending. it's the same offer i gave my opponent. don't you run into a constitutional issue when you start limiting -- >> no, you do. very good. we did this not exact like that, but we did campaign finance reform in the early 1970's, and a court case eviscerated it. after enron, we've brought forward mccain-feingold. we are going to need a constitutional amendment. my recommendation on this is a very short one that says something to the effect of in
view of the spirit of one person one vote, congress shall have the power to regulate federal election campaigns. what that does is signals to the court how important this is. -- my opponente says i have not done anything. i offered him a chance to be a national model. we have a chance to make a big difference across the country -- >> we have talked about this many times. i have been a leader in new york state for the fight for campaign finance reform. the voices of voters are being drowned out by corporate money -- there's no question. we've got to get rid of citizens united. we need more transparency, more think i havend i been open. i've disclosed every single contribution we received, and congressman gibson started talking about this when i got in the race. he had not signed on to the disclose act. you just said you supported disclosure. right now, there's more than $2 million in outside spending. the national chamber of commerce, known as dark money, we do not know who any of their donors are. they are doing your dirty work,
and you will not even sign onto the bill that will make them disclose their donors. >> because it does not disclose for everybody. it just picks a few people. it does not include all entities -- >> have you introduced a new bill? >> i have worked with you and citizens groups in this district on the same issue. let me say one thing on disclosure -- i would be willing to do that. the reason why i do not, candidly, is because i have democrats who have donated to me. i am willing to give it to third and have them look at it and redact democrats that gave to me. >> could you respond to the allegations regarding your own money? -- itms we are possible seems it's possible to setting up a system where only the very wealthy can afford to run. >> i am investing in my own race, which means i do not have to take a penny from it banks and wall street and big oil and pac's. no matter how honest and well-intentioned you are, you know those corporate tax contributions come with strings
attached, and it shows it in your voting record. voting against raising the minimum wage, voting to undermine the consumer protection bureau -- >> am sorry to cut you off, but i think the question the congressman sort of was try to get at was would you be able to run if you did not have personal wealth? >> we've had more than 4000 individual donors. the average contribution is under $50. we've raised more than two million dollars in this race, so absolutely. i know he does not respect my experience. i helped lead the fight for marriage equality. i know he does not support marriage equality -- >> let's not muddy the waters on this one. >> i think my record of work in the hudson valley is similar to the work on issues i would like to fight for in congress. >> i do need to follow-up. let me say i do respect your work on that. i'm surprised you do not talk more about it because that's the little experience you truly have. i in the second most independent republican in the congress, and i believe i have gotten judgment right. i have gotten money from defense companies, and then i voted against one of the defense
appropriations because it was not right. i have a record of i stand up. right here, ge, for example, had jointcond engine to the strike fighter, and paul tonko voted for a second engine, and i voted no because i could not look my constituents in the eye and say we should build two houses for summary to make it cheaper. opportunityave an to revisit other issues in the areas of your record. we will move on to michael. >> were going to stick a little bit with the issues of campaign finance. >> being beholden to the corporate districts -- the corporate interests, but a look at your financial disclosure forms shows that you have been money toey -- giving companies through your hudson river venture corporation. are you in some ways buying or at least trying to buy support
from companies you are investing in? >> absolutely not. i have been investing in partnering with small businesses, and they been working really hard every day. companies which are really a stellar example of main street if element, which we could have. they took a firehouse and took it into the state-of-the-art abilities. . am really proud of that work in politics, you often get a lot of talk and no action. i have acted. i've supported businesses, help create jobs, and i am proud of the record. >> just to follow up, wouldn't your intentions on some level see more p riff you had moved to if district -- see more pure you had moved to the district and volunteered, not immediately run for congress? >> i don't think we need more career politicians. i don't think we need more folks going through the normal career path. >> but don't you have to learn
about the district in which you are living, build up trust and support within that district? >> that's what i've been doing every day, and that is why i am -- supported by senator gillibrand. that is why we are closing the gap and why we have the support of many families throughout the district. i agree with you that the number one job is to listen. i have been out there through all 11 counties, 160 five towns, listening both as a candidate but also someone who has helped support small businesses. i am hearing they do not want to defund planned parenthood and they want better than the least productive congress and the history of our country. again, you told "the new york times" that this is where you were going to build your business and your family, and only several months later, you moved after the last election. somebody told me that you had several employees with hudson river ventures, and now they are on your campaign. maybe you would care to comment on that, but let me say this --
he says he does not take corporate money, but you know, he does. he takes money from the leadership, the ceo's, coo's and cfo's. there's so many. we could go through the list. there is a litany of them we can provide for you. it is disingenuous to say you are not taking corporate money when you are taking money from the leadership of those corporations. the people in our district do not see a difference between summary who is the government relations person and some of who is -- a fact, anything, they think the ceo is the one that calls the shots, and you started a super pac. >> i say one person on the state has voted again and again for corporations. one person signed koch brothers' pledge. that was not me, that was you. congressman, you're record reflects that you have been standing up with your corporate donors instead of for families in our region. i think minimum wage is a great example. you've taken contributions from the national restaurant
association and walmart -- >> we will get to minimum wage. if you want to respond directly to any of the allegations, please go ahead. otherwise, we move on. >> i'm proud of not taking corporate tax money, but we have to build a system where you do not have to be independently wealthy or well connected with wealthy people to run for office. we need to create a system where you can run on ideas and issues and values. i'm in a unique position to be able to be independent, but i want to fight for the kind of reform that lets more people run for office, and that's what i'm going to do. >> let's turn to the issue of frackingcking -- hydra . should the epa be taking a more active role in regulating this process to ensure water quality is not impacted, even if that means more regulation? >> i'm appreciative of you asking the question because my opponent is running a million-dollar campaign to mislead people about where my position is on fracking. i have said i would only support it if it is found to be safe.
if the studies come back -- we got a health study out right now, another environmental study, if it comes back it's not safe, i will not be supportive of it. in any case, i believe in home rule. if you have a local community that does not want to hydra fracking, they should not be forced to do it. i cannot compete with all the money he has got. he's running this multimillion dollar campaign in congress. we've had one vote. let's face reality -- but my inner on the ground. we have a president who is full throated in support of fracking, and we do it in multiple states. my role as a congressman is to protect our water and air. we had one vote whether or not we should have federal regulations -- absolutely. instantly, i'm the author -- well, i'm the republican lead, not the principal author, of an act requiring companies to disclose their chemicals and comply with the safe water tricking act. as a congressman, this is my role. if he truly wanted to ban fracking, he should have run for governor, because that is the person who makes the decision.
he is a part owner of these companies that do the fracking, the financing, and the transporting. tomr. eldridge, do you want respond, including allegations about your investment? >> i oppose fracking in the region, and i came out of a lot opposeregations that fracking. we have seen in pennsylvania drinking water has been polluted. i want to make sure we do not pollute our drink and water. we've seen in ohio and oklahoma that these earthquakes have happened in areas where there never were earthquakes before. i do not support fracking. i think we have to go with the science we have now, and to me, that says it is the wrong approach to our region. the congressman knows as well as ado that i invested in by third-party, similar to a mutual fund, any pension fund, and i think a lot of the folks in our district are in a mutual fund or pension fund and also oppose fracking. you could own a bank of america stock and believe we should have the consumer financial protection bureau to make sure we do not do better torry things. the question is who we fight
for. i will fight for families in our region, even if that means costing me money in my investment account. congressman gibson continues to fight for big corporations, and i think that is wrong. >> what about the president's support for hydra fracking? is it right for some state that allow it now and just wrong for new york? how do you square -- >> this is an issue where i disagree with president obama. he talked a lot about natural gas, but without even often mentioned -- mentioning the caveat that it would harm our environment. i have seen the studies about methane release that made me worry about impact of climate change. as a great activist in our district who used to work at exxon mobil. he has come out opposing fracking, and he is particularly worried about the methane release any impact on climate change. the idea of making climate change worse is very frightening to me. i would want to pause fracking until we know better the impact on climate change, and this congress is not acting on climate change, and i certainly think we should be. >> with all the concerns about
fracking, i do not understand why you will not divest. i understand you say a third-party makes the funding decisions, but the third party does not get the profit. some organizations have divested. you could send a letter and say you want to divest, but you will not do it. you did say it you win, you will move into a blind trust, but you did not even say you will send a letter to divest, and that is what i do not get. there is one person here who has sent out letters supporting fracking, and we have those letters in which you say you support a conference of energy policy. >> why not read the next sentence? the next sentence is i would only support if if it is found to be safe, and if it is not, i would oppose it. >> why not divest? >> what we need his policies in place, government policies that will get companies say.
>> i want to fight for the government policies and make sure that they do the right in. >> let's move on. >> we are going to move on. it is regarding lyme disease. the house passed the first ever lyme disease specific ill. it requires -- take-borne illness, generally speaking, not .ust lyme how does it change specifically -- i don't know if you have had any conversations -- if in fact to.blicans manage >> it is a priority. it needs to get signed into law this year. i just had a phone conference yesterday with some of the advocates.
i think it looks good. senator gillibrand said she would sponsor this in the senate. we can actually do this with a unanimous consent, providing that no one objects in the senate. so important. this bill was constituent driven. when i got home from the army, i did not go a day -- maybe a couple of days -- somebody would babies haveand say been suffering or a family member or close friend, so as soon as i got to washington, we got organized. heretofore, we made modest difference. a little money for better prevention, a little bit of money for better testing. here's the issue -- we have experts in the valley right now, and they cannot get their stuff published. we passed the bill so that we could diversify into different viewpoints because once we do, the guidelines for the centers for disease control will change, and that will provide for better treatment and better insurance company coverage. >> isn't, though -- i don't want to get into a tit-for-tat on the issue of lyme disease, but isn't
it controversial, the sub question of chronic lyme disease? you are open to hearing from those health experts who say that is not in fact something or evensignificant real? >> i have a responsibility. people,or 750 thousand zora have to listen to everyone, even people i may not agree with. i have met with health care professionals, some that say there is not a chronic lyme, but i have done a deep dive into this and listen very carefully, and i know one thing for sure -- i have constituents who are truly suffering and have for a long time. we have doctors whom i trust that have shown the evidence, and i believe there is chronic lyme, and this bill will make a difference. some have said -- the guy who authored the bill and autism that made a big difference in how our country has changed autism in the last 15 years or so thinks this bill would be the same for chronic lyme disease as what was done for autism. before we be clear, go any further, have you had conversations with republicans in the u.s. senate?
-- the way this process works is the majority leader -- we do not want to wait until the next congress. sends out ader reid message, and then we find out who might have objections, and i have to go personally from office to office so we can get those -- to dissuade those concerns and we can get this signed into office this year. >> it is an important issue. i do think if you are stuck with one of these illnesses, you need health care. that's why you not only need that kind of research, but it's why i oppose voting more than 40 times to undermine to repeal the affordable care act. 15,000 people in our district have health-care coverage now that they did not before. to take that away from them i think is wrong. i don't want to go back to the day where folks were denied coverage or go bankrupt because of a previous existing condition. surenk we got to make
health care happens, and this is an important difference -- congressman gibson and i were asked whether we believe health care is a fundament right for every american or not, and i said yes, and conga gibson said no. that's an important difference. >> we will get to a formal health care, and i will allow you a moment to rebut, but i want to make one thing clear -- is there something in terms of lyme, which this question is about specifically, that you think you could do better if you were elected? >> i think we have to make sure the proper funding is there. we found with the sequester that funding for all research was cut across the board. it has not yet passed the senate. i think we have to get more things done. with the least productive congress in a history of our country, we're not getting things done online, on infrastructure, and so many other important issues. >> here is the thing, though -- the way we replace the sequester with a bipartisan budget -- we worked together to get that done, but you did not support that. it's hard when you have -- i understand that you are earnest and you certainly are very aggressive on your goals. i get that, but at the end of
the day, no one gets 100% of what they want. you have to work together. on the issue of the health care law, when i first read this, i said that this law is going to help someone. it's going to hurt more people .han it helps the pledges was our health care costs were going to go down. if you like your health care plan, you could keep it, and it would not cut medicare. we found all three of those promises have been broken. i voted to repeal it three times. i voted to improve it the rest of the time. my opponent -- for example, one of those votes was if you like your health care plan, you can keep it, and apparently, my opponent opposes that. >> forgive me for cutting you off. we have health care a little further down the list, but we want to get to as many questions as we can, and we are running out of time, some going to move in on to you. >> congas and gibson, i'm going to stick with you. were going to discuss immigration reform. you have expressed support for increasing border security for a
guest worker program, and also, you have said that you support giving undocumented immigrants the opportunity to get green cards, which would essentially put them on a pathway to citizenship. , and correctsition me if i'm wrong, it seems at least when you talk about the spirit, you are somewhat in line with the senate bill, so why not call on house leadership to bring up that bill, using as a starting point, at least, to somehow get to copperheads of immigration reform in the house? >> if you read the congressional budget office, page five of their analysis is that this bill, the bill you are referring to -- it only cut illegal immigration by a third. problem is it does not solve the problem. we just had a little talk about the health care law. we had to pass it before we knew what was in it. regardless of where you are really issue, we are going to spend time struggling with that issue going forward. here is what i have done -- you have done pretty well recapping
where i met, but my opponent says i have not done anything. that's not true -- i introduced an immigration bill, and our farmers were supportive of it. i voted for visa reform, and that passed the house, and died in the senate. i have published what i think the way forward is. --aid earlier in this debate republicans voted for it, and we got them on record, so now i think we can get republicans to go the rest of the way to get this done because it is really important for our farmers and really important to families. >> just to follow-up, you already have this bill in place that was passed by the senate. i understand you have problems with it, but why not at least use that as a starting point for improving on that? >> it's a fair point to raise, and i have taken action. i went through that bill, and i said let's drill in on where the cbo found criticism. there's two things i think we could immediately do that we can get a better score.
why do score matter? this is the impartial referee that assesses the bill. the american people need to have faith we are going to solve this. the first thing i recommended is there's too many waivers in the bill. the president or one of the secretaries gets to wave. the problem is the cbo knows better because they have seen this over time, so they score that as more lenient. the second thing we can do is employ a concept of federalism. andave a regular military national guard. we have a state police and county sheriff. i argued we should have one law and multiple echelons in forcing it. i maintain -- i recommended to the authors of this to at least get it scored because we may be able to get better -- >> let me turn to you. respond to his criticisms of the that thealso the fact
issue could be revisited again and another five or 10 years. >> i think it is ironic the congressman saying that i let the perfect be the enemy of the good. this is a historic opportunity where a bipartisan coalition of senators cobbled together legislation to deal with immigration reform in the long run. it would have created a guest worker program, it would have provided billions more in border security, and it would have provided an earned pathway to citizenship that would have taken more than a decade to happen. we had this historic opportunity. you want to be moderate, you got to agree with some disagreements. this is a business community, a labor community. condescend gibson has a 0% rating on labor reform. the only vote that seems to be focused on in the house is to deport young dreamers, folks brought to this country through no fault of their own. this is the difference between us. it would lower our debt, reduce deficit, and grow our economy -- >> but his point that it would not necessarily solve the problem entirely --
we had this historic bipartisan agreement, and that of passing it or voting on it in the house or creating limits and discussing how to make a better, we had in action. two more years, four more years of no competence of immigration reform, and that is so symptomatic of this congress, this do nothing least productive congress and the history of our country. families are getting hurt. our economy is getting hurt. we are kicking the can on the road on every major issue. perfectess was doing a job right now, i might do other things, but they are not. >> i will say it is simply as i can -- the impartial referee, the cbo assessed on page five that this only reduces illegal 1/3.ration by i don't want to see us go through the whole process we went through with the health care law because we are going to have to work through that. we have history. passed ary in 1986 bill that president reagan signed into law. he thought that would be the answer, but we learned very quickly it was not, and that was
how we in up in the circumstance. i'm optimistic, and i appreciate the way you worded the original question because i am on record. i introduced a bill and voted entirely, and i am published, and i have been active on this, and i going to make more of a difference on this issue than my opponent could. the house is going to stay republican, and i got leverage as a republican leader. >> we have covered a lot of ground, which we are very pleased about. unfortunately, we are out of time, and we have to move to closing statements. >> thank you so much for joining us for this conversation tonight. one issue we did not touch on very much as the issue of health care and women's health care. i was proud to serve on the board of planned parenthood in the hudson valley. congress and gibson road to defund planned parenthood. when i was knocking on doors in kingston a few weeks ago, a middle-aged woman stopped me and said that the most important issue for her was land parenthood, and i asked her why. she said because when she was in
her 30's, she had gone to a planned parenthood and caught a very aggressive illness and planned parenthood save her life. voting to defund it is not moderate. i think a vote for congressman gibson is a vote for the status quo, a vote for two more years of the least productive congress in the history of our country. i want to bring some urgency, new ideas, new blood to congress. i'm asking for your help to make that happen, asking for your vote on november 4. together, we can move our country forward on so many of the important issues we talked about. thank you. >> thank you, everyone, for joining in here tonight. i think it's important we reflect on what we heard. my opponent is pouring millions of dollars into this campaign. you have no doubt seen those negative and false commercials and mailers. at the end of the day, my opponent provides no plans, no inspiration, and he would only make it worse.
we had this discussion here tonight. he does not support the bipartisan statements that would help our area. in contrast, i have a proven record of bringing people together to get things done for us. i'm tied for second most effective legislator according to open congress, and i have broad and wide support, including those who create jobs like the national federation of independent business, manufacturers and the farm bureau, and our workers. and i have the support of the teachers union. leadership gets things done for us, whether you be a republican, independent, conservative, i'm asking for your vote on the fourth of november. thank you very much. >> thank you. that does conclude our debate between the 19th congressional district candidates. thank you for participating, and thanks to all of you at home for watching. please remember to go out and vote on november 4, and stay with time warner cable news and twc.com for all your election
updates. until then, have a great night. "washingtonxt journal," we'll talk about what to expect in the final days leading up to election day with at how candidates are obtaining voter information. targeted victory cofounder walsh l beach and jim will join us. we will also take your phone calls and comments on facebook and twitter. it all begins live at 7 am eastern on c-span. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> more campaign 2014 coverages ahead with a debate between the candidates in minnesota seventh district. that is followed by two other congressional debates by in florida and ohio.